THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:18 p.m. [ET], for the election of the Deputy Chair; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business); and, in public, for the examination of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Rosemary Moodie. I’m a senator from Ontario, and I’m the chair of this committee. Before we begin, I’d like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator.
Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker. Thank you for your cooperation.
Before we move on to the first item in our agenda, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves.
Senator McPhedran: Senator McPhedran, independent senator from Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Senior: Paulette Senior, senator from Ontario.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, senator from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood from the beautiful province of British Columbia in the West.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, senator from Manitoba.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are on to our first item of business today, which is the election of the deputy chair. First I will call for nominations. Are there any nominations?
Senator Osler: I nominate Senator Burey.
The Chair: It is moved that the Honourable Senator Burey be deputy chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Welcome, Senator Burey. Now, is it agreed that we briefly go in camera to discuss the future business of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We will now continue our discussions in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
Senator Sharon Burey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: My name is Sharon Burey. I am a senator from Ontario and the deputy chair of this committee.
We will now proceed to a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
I would like to welcome the officials from Employment and Social Development Canada, Health Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, who are with us in the room today and are available to answer technical questions, if needed: Mr. Vaillancourt, Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada; Mr. Lynch, Director General, Policy Coordination and Planning Directorate, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada; Ms. Stefanis, Director General, Strategic Policy, Jordan’s Principle and Inuit Child First Initiative, Indigenous Services Canada; Ms. Mattison, Director General, Strategic and Fiscal Coordination Branch, Children, Family and Learning Sector, Indigenous Services Canada; and Ms. Novak, Director General, Mental Wellness and Health Promotion, Health and Social Sector, Indigenous Services Canada.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. As chair, I will call each clause successively in the order they appear in the bill. If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is, therefore, useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Since no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one, or ones, may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to an argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling. The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators, we are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Hay: I will begin by suggesting an amendment to clause 4, and forgive me if I fumble through this.
First, I’m just grateful to all of you for all the work on this important bill. Senator Moodie, specifically, there is so much values-based courage in full play here.
I begin with my amendments to clause 4 on page 3, which speaks to what the national strategy would explicitly address. This amendment would ensure that equitable access to mental health services, resources and supports is clearly included as a core element of the strategy. I’d like to move the following amendment:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by adding the following after line 4:
“(i.1) equitable access to mental health services, resources and supports that respond to the diverse needs of all children and youth across Canada, with particular attention to the specific needs of children and youth from distinct communities and groups, including
(A) First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities,
(B) refugee or immigrant families,
(C) persons living in rural or remote locations,
(D) persons belonging to vulnerable groups,
(E) Black persons and persons from other racialized communities, and
(F) children and youth with disabilities,”.
I think this amendment recognizes that some children and youth face systemic barriers to equitable mental health support, including First Nation, Métis and Inuit children and youth, those from newcomer families, young people in rural or remote communities, racialized and vulnerable groups, and children and youth with disabilities.
I received strong additional letters of support — right now in English only — from witnesses who have actually been here from Kids Help Phone, who indicated that, by adding explicit reference to mental health in Bill S-212, the legislation will ensure the national strategy better reflects the holistic needs of young people, and from Children’s Healthcare Canada, emphasizing that a growing number of young Canadians are experiencing mental health conditions that affect their overall well-being, their home life and their schooling.
Again, I would like to thank Senator Moodie for your incredible leadership on this bill and for your continued dedication to improving the outcomes for children and youth coast to coast to coast. I’m deeply grateful.
I hope, colleagues, that you will support this amendment. I think it strengthens clause 4.
Finally, I’d like to highlight the added friendly addition or amendment to include children and youth with disabilities. I think it’s a critical addition. I thank you for that, Senator Petitclerc.
That’s what I have to say. I do want to make a friendly amendment in my preamble, but I know that’s been postponed, so we will talk about that then.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Hay. We would move to the discussion part of this.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Hay, can you help me understand a bit better the use of the term “vulnerable” children? My sense is that all children are vulnerable, and with the excellent addition from Senator Petitclerc, you’ve got a lot of specificity that is helpful. Just help me understand that line.
Senator Hay: Thank you for the question, senator; I appreciate it.
For me, as someone who has worked in the youth mental health space with young people as young as 5 to about 28, the word “vulnerable” is often something that we would talk about. I agree; we were very specific.
A young person may feel vulnerability, and there’s strength in that, or they may feel vulnerability and have no strength.
I do like the word “vulnerable” as opposed to listing the communities in which they may identify. They may not identify in any community but feel vulnerable in the moment.
That’s why I’ve included it. It’s common language, as well, in the space.
Senator McPhedran: Is it a kind of safety to ensure it’s as inclusive as possible?
Senator Hay: I think so, and so young people can see themselves, however they might feel, in the strategy.
The Deputy Chair: Is there any other discussion?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
I believe we have another amendment.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I would also like to propose an amendment. I will read it first and then speak to it.
I move:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 3,
(a) by replacing line 22 with the following:
“September 14, 2005,”;
(b) by replacing line 26 with the following:
“13, 2007, as it relates to children and youth, and
(E) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, as it relates to children and youth;”.
[English]
I am proposing this amendment for your consideration. You will recall we had the panel with some organizations representing children with disabilities, specifically the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, and, of course, Inclusion Canada.
I want to quote Ms. Carr, whom we had from Inclusion Canada, and she was specific on the need for this amendment when she said:
Bill S-212 references the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These are essential. But it is silent on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the CRPD, which Canada ratified in 2010.
Of course, she goes on to say that there are 800,000 children in Canada.
The reason I want to add this amendment is because I feel that it really needs to be there, and it is supported by the organizations and the stakeholders that we had as witnesses.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc.
We’ll move to the discussion.
Senator Moodie: It’s an excellent addition to the bill, and I support it.
Senator McPhedran: I want to add my congratulations and my appreciation, but I also thought it might be helpful if I just made a point about why, legally, this is crucial. It is because the courts in Canada have historically made a distinction between our international obligations and our obligations in domestic law, and they’ve been pretty clear that if we don’t have a specific reference in our domestic law, such as this statute, there isn’t an obligation to take into consideration what is in international law. There’s a general sort of “yes, we did it, and that’s nice,” but when you really want to see implementation of the key principles and the rights that are articulated, you want the specific reference that is in your amendment.
Senator Petitclerc: I appreciate that comment.
The Deputy Chair: Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
I believe we have another amendment.
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move the following amendment:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by adding the following after line 30:
“(b.1) identify a series of outcomes and quantifiable indicators that are relevant to Indigenous children and youth, developed to reflect the unique realities and needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis and informed by Indigenous perspectives and knowledge systems;”.
The reason I am moving this amendment is in response to the briefing note submitted by the Assembly of First Nations. I don’t believe it’s a shock to anyone in this room that the lived realities of Indigenous children are significantly different than other children living in Canada. According to Statistics Canada’s information from 2021, 24% of Indigenous children live in poverty. This is more than double that of non-Indigenous children.
If we disaggregate this information even further, we find that 37.4% of First Nations children living on reserve live in poverty.
There are numerous socioeconomic factors, including colonization, that significantly and disproportionately impact the health and well-being of Indigenous children. As a response, many Indigenous governing bodies and other groups developed indicators that are specific to First Nations, Inuit and Métis. By incorporating indicators that are relevant to Indigenous children and youth and are informed by Indigenous perspectives and knowledge systems, we can ensure that the national strategy can fulsomely address the challenges that are unique to Indigenous children and ensure that they are not lost, so to speak, among the larger Canadian population.
Additionally, this wording is not specific to any one particular Indigenous group — that is, First Nations, Inuit or Métis — but rather ensures that it’s distinctions-based, by ensuring that these indicators reflect the unique realities and needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and are not just Indigenous children at large.
The Deputy Chair: Is there any discussion, colleagues?
Seeing none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move the following amendment:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 4, by replacing lines 17 and 18 with the following:
“of Justice, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Employment and Social Development;”.
This amendment is in response to the briefing note and witness testimony from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec and Labrador, and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, which called for the inclusion of the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Employment and Social Development to be included in the list of ministers that should be consulted, found in 4(3)(b).
The Minister of Indigenous Services is responsible for overseeing the children, families and learning sector in Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, which oversees education programs as well as Child and Family Services. Additionally, the Minister of Indigenous Services is responsible for Jordan’s Principle, which the minister, as designated under section 3, needs to consider under 4(5)(b) of this bill.
Additionally, Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, is responsible for income supports for families such as the Canada Child Benefit. It is responsible for the learning branch and is responsible for Canada’s child care agreements and helps to ensure that the Indigenous early learning and child care framework is being implemented.
Additionally, the Secretary of State (Children and Youth) is housed within ESDC.
The Deputy Chair: Is there any discussion, colleagues?
Senator McPhedran: Very briefly, I would like to say that, from a Manitoba perspective, with so much distress around the cuts to Jordan’s Principle, we’re already seeing some genuinely devastating consequences for children and their families. So this is an additional advocacy tool as well, because it’s so specific.
The Deputy Chair: Seeing no further discussion, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion in amendment carried.
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move the following amendment:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 4, by adding the following after line 29:
“(3.1) In conducting consultations under paragraph (3)(a), the Minister must ensure that child and youth participants are engaged in a culturally safe environment and in ways that respect their own respective cultures and that they are provided with the opportunity to participate in their own respective languages.”.
This amendment is in response to the briefing note and witness testimony from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec and Labrador, and the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, who had concerns that, without certain safety nets, these consultations could cause further trauma.
This would ensure that, when the minister consults with children and youth as required under 4(3)(a) of this bill, that it’s done in such a matter that it’s a culturally safe environment that respects their culture and with an opportunity to participate in their own language.
I also want to note that this amendment is not specific to Indigenous children and youth. It’s important that all racialized children and youth should be able to participate in a culturally safe way and in a culturally safe environment that respects their culture and their languages.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, is there any discussion?
Senator Petitclerc: I have a small comment. I want to ensure that both versions are correct. In English it says, “the minister must ensure,” and in French it says, “le ministre veille.” My perspective is that “must ensure” is stronger language. Senator, I see you nodding, so I’m happy to see you nodding.
My understanding is that we want strong language, so I would suggest that maybe we should align the French version with the English version.
Laura Blackmore, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I defer to your judgment on that. Would the word “doit” be more acceptable?
Senator Boudreau: That would not be without reworking the sentence, though.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: We could perhaps use “doit s’assurer.” It’s difficult.
Senator Boudreau: I’m not a language professional. I agree that it does not have the same impact. I don’t know if the professional translators listening to us can make a suggestion.
Senator Petitclerc: I wrote down “doit s’assurer,” but again —
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Our clerk has just informed me that we have confirmation from the legal clerk that the wording is consistent, and it means the same thing from a legal perspective.
Senator Klyne: What means the same thing? “Must” and “may” are two different things.
Senator Boudreau: No, “must” and “veille” in French.
The Deputy Chair: Madam clerk, would you like to elaborate on that?
Ferda Simpson, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: It has to do with what Senator Petitclerc is flagging. I am getting confirmation that, from a legal perspective, it is the same in French and in English.
Senator Moodie: I also raised it with our legal expert for the bill to find out if there was any disparity there, and I have been assured that it legally reads the same way.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, is that acceptable to the committee?
Senator Osler: Just so I’m clear, we have confirmation that “must ensure” and “veille” legally carry the same weight and interpretation?
Senator Moodie: That is our understanding.
The Deputy Chair: Is there any further discussion, colleagues?
Senator Boudreau: I have a question for Senator Greenwood. Please don’t take this wrong way.
We sometimes have a challenge serving Canadians in our two official languages. I can only assume that here we’re talking about dozens, if not hundreds. How do we do that effectively?
Maybe it’s not a fair question for you to answer, but I’m a little puzzled, because, as I said, as a francophone in a minority situation, we sometimes have a hard time dealing with two languages. How can we incorporate multiple languages in these types of consultations? I’ve never been exposed to that.
Senator Greenwood: I understand that question. I won’t answer that as a senator. I’m going to answer that as a person who has been a researcher and who has worked with children and youth in the community.
When we want to engage with the community, we engage with the community. We engage with the leadership. We engage, seek permission and work with them in partnership to engage with their families, their children and youth, and it is with community that we get the people who can translate for you so that it starts to address — I’m thinking practical and on the ground. I think that was what your question was: How do you actually do this, right?
Senator Boudreau: Yes, because I understand the importance behind it. I’m just curious.
Senator Greenwood: I think that’s when you can engage with young people, like children and youth, but you must also engage the collective to have that support. You want them to be engaged in this as well. It is their children as well.
It’s really important that you engage that collective to actually be able to engage in these kinds of conversations.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Greenwood, for your work on this amendment.
My question is this: Is this amendment inclusive enough in its wording to include folks who use sign language — so a different type of language? Deaf culture is a specific culture. People can be hard of hearing. Is this language inclusive enough to capture those languages and forms of communication?
Senator Greenwood: It certainly is the intent. It certainly is the intent to be inclusive of all languages and all of our cultures because we have many peoples in this country. We have many Indigenous Peoples in this country, but we have many people. It is intended to be open enough to include all of those children and youth. That was the intent.
Senator McPhedran: I just have a point of clarification to both Senators Greenwood and Boudreau.
Is this also a concern around resources? Do you see the potential here for a mandatory spending of money in order to reach a threshold that you’ve described? To my ears, you’ve described methodology, and then aligned with that is the question of the resources needed to implement that methodology.
Senator Greenwood: Two things: One is that, certainly, when we were drafting this amendment, I wasn’t thinking about funding. Two, I answered the question as a researcher, as a person who has worked in the nation, so I’m not thinking about it from a senator’s perspective; I’m thinking about what that would look like on the ground.
I’m not sure. I don’t want this to turn into a request for funding, because that would negate the amendment, and I don’t want that to happen.
I think we have to say that it is open to engaging with children and youth from all cultures in a respectful way. That is the intent of this amendment. It’s not about whether I need funding to do this. It’s about, “How am I going to engage in respectful ways, which include culture and safety?”
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, do you think we need further clarification on this point? Could the officials weigh in? Do you think you have something to weigh in on? No, okay.
Senator McPhedran: Have we reached a consensus that, as worded, this amendment does not include financial obligations? Is that what it comes down to?
Senator Petitclerc: You make me question this because, the way I read it, the legislation calls for consultation. Then consultation, with this amendment, the minister must ensure a safe environment for people in their own respective languages. The worry I had before, Senator Greenwood, was that I wouldn’t want children not to be consulted.
I live in downtown Montreal, and so I’m thinking about the playground right in front of where I live with all the different children and different languages. I wouldn’t want them not to be consulted because consultation must ensure it is in their language, which needs coordination, funding, and, I suppose, translation. Do you know what my worry is?
Senator Greenwood: Yes.
Senator Moodie: I would say that that is a concern of mine.
I have also worked in the front line of health care in institutions that do deal with broad populations of children. We do have interpretive services available in multiple languages at a cost.
I would be concerned about being this specific here because then it generates a question of what we are forcing the government to do that may incur a cost. We, as senators, cannot spend money on behalf of the government. I would be a little bit concerned about that.
I understand the intent. I think it is a very worthwhile but ambitious intent. I’m not sure we can provide it in the broader sense in a consultative way. I would be cautious about that, and I would, for that reason, be concerned about this.
Senator Senior: I’m looking at the language. It says that child and youth participants are engaged in a culturally safe environment in ways that respect their own cultures. And it says that they are provided with the opportunity to participate in their own respective languages. I think that’s fine.
It’s not prescriptive. They’re provided with the opportunity. So I think that is broad enough language.
Senator Osler: I’m wondering if we could go from the word “must” to a different verb — to encourage it, but not make it too prescriptive unless the committee feels that’s proper. Could we go from a “must” to a “should”? I know that isn’t as strong as the current language, but I’ll leave it at that for consideration.
Senator Hay: I wonder, instead of “must,” could it be with a guiding principle of including language and cultural safety as a baseline or something along those lines. So could we include a guiding principle as opposed to a “must”?
Senator Greenwood: To respond to this, the intent of the language is quite open. In light of what people are saying, what if we say, “the minister ensures that child and youth participants are engaged in a culturally safe environment in ways that respect their own respective cultures,” period. I say this because culture can include language if that’s there. It’s broad enough that it can be inclusive of people, but we’re not going to get caught up in an argument about money.
Senator Moodie: I would support that strongly.
Senator Osler: How would the French read?
The Deputy Chair: Senator Greenwood, would you mind reading that again for us?
Senator Greenwood: Okay, sure. I’ll read the whole thing.
(3.1). In conducting consultations under paragraph 3(a), the Minister must ensure that child and youth participants are engaged in a culturally safe environment and in ways that respect their own respective cultures . . .
The Deputy Chair: So the word “must” is gone?
Senator Greenwood: That’s right. We’re just being more active.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, we have a subamendment.
We have a decision to make because that subamendment has to be translated into French. Before we proceed, it would have to be translated. We have a hard stop 10 minutes from now. Do we want to conclude for today or should we try to work it in within the 10 minutes?
Senator McPhedran: Could we postpone that, get as much done as possible and see if we can circle back?
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Colleagues, is it agreed that we postpone the action on this amendment to the next sitting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Moodie: Can I ask procedurally what will happen? Will you send out the request for translation today so that by tomorrow we have it?
Ms. Simpson: That’s right, senator.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Ms. Simpson: I’ll work with Senator Greenwood’s office for clarification on that, yes.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators.
Senator Osler: Madam Chair, I think it’s a friendly point of order on the next two amendments.
The Deputy Chair: Should she read the amendment? Do you have a clarification?
Senator Osler: Reading through the next two motions, so S212-4-5-9, S212-4-5-9(a), I see that the last part of the amendment in both amendments reads, “by replacing line 9 with the following.”
So if 4-5-9 is adopted, and the new line 9 gets replaced, the next motion would replace the line that we just adopted. I need some clarification on that.
The Deputy Chair: Let’s have a discussion about this.
Senator Greenwood: You’re talking about the next two motions, Senator Osler?
Senator Osler: Correct. The first motion, S212-4-5-9, replaces line 9 with a new line. Then the next motion again reads, “by replacing line 9 with the following.”
Does the second motion not eliminate the new line 9 that was just adopted in this one?
Senator Greenwood: This is a question for the clerk.
Senator Osler: Yes.
Senator Greenwood: This is almost a formatting technical amendment here that will be fixed when we get to the thing that says “agreed or not,” when we agree for the clerk to do her thing.
So they are two different amendments. There are two (e)s, and those technical (e)s get fixed later in the process. So if you look at this page, when we get to the point where we agree that the clerk will go and do the adjustments, that will be fixed.
Senator Osler: Can it be fixed?
Senator Greenwood: That’s how I understand this. So I’m going to ask the clerk to explain.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Colleagues, I’ve been informed that we can’t presuppose what motion will be adopted or not, so we will proceed.
As Senator Greenwood suggested, we will agree, at the end, to have the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make necessary changes. The ruling at this point is because we can’t presuppose what’s going to happen. We will proceed with this amendment, Senator Greenwood, which was where you started. Is that clear? Yes, okay.
Senator Greenwood: Senators, I move the following amendment:
That Bill S-212 be amended in clause 4, on page 5,
(a) by replacing line 5 with the following:
“(c) the Inuit Child First Initiative;”;
(b) by replacing line 9 with the following:
“Girls; and
(e) the unique rights, interests, cultures and languages of First Nations, Inuit and Métis.”.
The first part of this amendment is regarding formatting, as it moves the word “and” from line 5 to line 9 in the English component. That’s what that does. That’s the formatting thing.
The crux of the amendment is in response to the testimony from David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Métis Federation. It would ensure that the minister must consider the unique rights, interests, cultures and languages of First Nations, Inuit and Métis. This would then result in a distinctions-based approach when developing the national strategy that would properly consider the unique realities of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and not a one-size-fits-all pan-Canadian or even pan-Indigenous approach that considers all three groups as one. It’s a distinctions-based approach.
In his testimony, President Chartrand outlined the importance of a distinctions-based approach and how it has been applied to housing, early learning and child care. He also spoke about the concerns of the strategy having a pan-Indigenous approach. He was also correct when pointing out that Jordan’s Principle and the Inuit Child First Initiative, which are referenced in this bill, are specific to First Nations and Inuit. He’s speaking from a Métis perspective.
Also quoting from Mr. Gray’s testimony from the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission:
This national strategy has a lot to learn from the early learning child care initiatives and the distinctions-based approaches there. We don’t want a blanket approach or pan-Canadian approach when it comes to looking at developing these strategies regarding child and youth well-being. We reiterate, again, the importance of distinctions-based approaches. There are huge concerns about a national strategy and Indigenous Peoples’ needs, rights and realities being swept into this national strategy and not having their specific and distinct needs addressed.
The Deputy Chair: Is there any discussion, colleagues? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the motion, in amendment, carried.
Senators, we have done real, wonderful, collaborative work today. Thank you so much for your diligence. We will continue tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)